The State of the Art Versus the State of the Science: The Diffusion of New Medical Technologies into Practice

Abstract This paper offers a theory to explain the diffusion of new medical technologies into local practice. Based on several hundred interviews with community hospital physicians, it anchors technology decisions in the norms and relationships of local practice. Physician descriptions of their use of different types of assessment information provide insight into the way in which local consenses on appropriate practice are formed, guide behavior, and change. To understand new technology adoption, it is necessary to (a) differentiate “formed” (complete) and “dynamic” (still developing) technologies, and (b) appreciate the extent to which medical practice is locally organized. Concepts from organizational literature, then, become useful in explaining the penetration of these medical communities and the circumstances under which a new modality takes hold in them. Within the framework presented, previously puzzling findings regarding variations in local practice and the poor relationship between practice behavior and the published literature become understandable.

[1]  S. Reiser.  Assessment and the Technologic Present , 1986, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[2]  A. Greer.  Adoption of Medical Technology: The Hospital's Three Decision Systems , 1985, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[3]  D. Feeny,et al.  Neglected Issues in the Diffusion of Health Care Technologies:The Role of Skills and Learning , 1985, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[4]  J. Wennberg,et al.  Dealing with medical practice variations: a proposal for action. , 1984, Health affairs.

[5]  J. Katz,et al.  Why doctors don't disclose uncertainty. , 1984, The Hastings Center report.

[6]  Mary Chatfield,et al.  Health Care Management: A Text in Organization Theory and Behavior , 1984 .

[7]  P. Doubilet,et al.  The cost of underutilization. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for peripheral vascular disease. , 1984, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  A L Greer,et al.  Medical technology and professional dominance theory. , 1984, Social Science & Medicine (1967).

[9]  B. Jennett.  High Technology Medicine: Benefits and Burdens , 1984 .

[10]  J. Goodwin,et al.  The tomato effect. Rejection of highly efficacious therapies. , 1984, JAMA.

[11]  Stephen M. Shortell,et al.  Health care management : a text in organization theory and behavior , 1983 .

[12]  A. Greer,et al.  Cities and sickness: health care in urban America , 1983 .

[13]  J. Wennberg.  Should the cost of insurance reflect the cost of use in local hospital markets? , 1982, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  S. Whitbourne,et al.  How physicians view the process of change in their practice behavior. , 1982, Journal of medical education.

[15]  J. Goodwin,et al.  Failure to Recognize Efficacious Treatments: A History of Salicylate Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis , 2015, Perspectives in biology and medicine.

[16]  I. Horowitz.  Experiment Perilous , 1980 .

[17]  J. Wyngaarden.  The clinical investigator as an endangered species. , 1979, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  H V Fineberg,et al.  Evaluation of medical practices. The case for technology assessment. , 1979, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  J. Stross,et al.  The dissemination of new medical information. , 1979, JAMA.

[20]  R. Bingham.  Innovation, Bureaucracy, and Public Policy: a Study of Innovation Adoption By Local Government , 1978 .

[21]  J. Bunker,et al.  Surgical innovation and its evaluation. , 1978, Science.

[22]  E J Sondik,et al.  DECISION‐MAKING IN PLANNING LARGE‐SCALE COMPARATIVE STUDIES , 1978, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[23]  A. Greer.  Advances in the study of diffusion of innovation in health care organizations. , 1977, The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly. Health and society.

[24]  Moore Fd.  Small area variations in health care delivery. A critique. , 1977, The Journal of the Maine Medical Association.

[25]  F. Mosteller,et al.  Costs, Risks, and Benefits of Surgery , 1977 .

[26]  Lawrence B. Mohr,et al.  Conceptual issues in the study of innovation , 1976 .

[27]  H H Hiatt,et al.  Protecting the medical commons: who is responsible? , 1975, Trustee : the journal for hospital governing boards.

[28]  H. Fred.  Controversy in Internal Medicine II , 1975 .

[29]  Report of the Committee for the Assessment of Biometric Aspects of Controlled Trials of Hypoglycemic Agents. , 1975, JAMA.

[30]  Kenneth E. Warner,et al.  The need for some innovative concepts of innovation: An examination of research on the diffusion of innovations , 1974 .

[31]  E. Rogers,et al.  Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach. , 1974 .

[32]  A. Kaluzny,et al.  Innovation of health services: a comparative study of hospitals and health departments. , 1974, The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly. Health and society.

[33]  A. Gittelsohn,et al.  Small Area Variations in Health Care Delivery , 1973, Science.

[34]  N. Scotch.  Interns: From Students to Physicians , 1971 .

[35]  M. Becker,et al.  Sociometric Location and Innovativeness: Reformulation and Extension of the Diffusion Model , 1970 .

[36]  J. Coleman,et al.  Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study. , 1967 .

[37]  F. Ingelfinger.  CONTROVERSY IN INTERNAL MEDICINE , 1966 .

[38]  J. Lanzetta,et al.  Innovation in organizations , 1965 .

[39]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical School. , 1962 .

[40]  E. Epstein,et al.  Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical School , 1962 .